Teni Yuyuni v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1270/2024

[2026] HKCFI 4011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1270 OF 2024

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

1.  Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 12 October 2023 be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 40-year-old national of Indonesia who last arrived in Hong Kong on 23 October 2022 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 23 October 2024 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 24 February 2023, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 19 June 2023. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to Indonesia she would be harmed or killed by a creditor over some monetary dispute. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. After leaving school she worked as a domestic helper in Singapore before returning to Indonesia married her husband and raised a family with a daughter in her home district.

3.In 2012 she started coming to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, returning to Indonesia only for holidays.

4.In 2021 in order to pay for her father’s medical expenses for his lung disease, her mother borrowed a loan from some local money-lender naming the Applicant as guarantor, and requested her to assist with the monthly instalment repayments by remitting money from her earnings in Hong Kong, which she did until her last employment was prematurely terminated on 24 February 2023 when she was without any income to make any more loan repayment, whereupon the creditor started to make threats against her, and so the Applicant was afraid to return to Indonesia and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 19 July 2023 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 8 August 2023 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her mother’s creditor upon her return to Indonesia as low due to the absence of or low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from the creditor, that there is no evidence of any real intention the creditor to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to repay the loan, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between her mother and the creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Indonesia with a large population of 277 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 1.9 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities where it would be difficult if not impossible for her mother’s creditor to locate her.

7.On 16 August 2023 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 3 October 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 12 October 2023 her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from some creditor of her mother over some debts that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if her claimed threats from her mother’s creditor over her mother’s debts were true, that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention the creditor to seriously harm or kill her other than to press her to repay her mother’s debts, and that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between her mother and the creditor only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to Indonesia as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her mother’s creditor that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

9.On 2 August 2024 the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just asserted that the decision is unreasonable and that the Board had failed to properly consider all the matters raised in her claim or to give adequate reasons for its decision but without providing any details or particulars or elaboration as to how it did so.

10.By then the Applicant was also out of time with her application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made.

11.As the last day of the three-month period for her to file her Form 86 fell on 12 January 2024, the Applicant was therefore more than 6 months late with her application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

12.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 6 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which she did not provide any explanation or reasons in her Form or affirmation, and as the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 12 October 2023 to her then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I am unable to see any good or valid reason for her such serious delay.

13.As for the merits, if any, of her intended application, as noted above that the Applicant has failed to put forth any proper ground for her intended challenge, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in her intended application either.

14.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

15.In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other parts of Indonesia, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

16.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

17.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 4 May 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her issues in her home country have been resolved so that she now wants to return to Indonesia as soon as possible.

18.As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation that there are no more issues for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

Dated the 17^th day of July 2026

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1